No child left behind

[woodstock]

MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION--CONFERENCE REPORT--Resumed -- (Senate - December 21, 2005)
-------------------
MERIT PAY RAISES TEACHER OUALITY AND TREATS TEACHERS AS PROFESSIONALS

Education research demonstrates that teacher quality is the single most important factor affecting student achievement. That said, one recent study documents a decline in teacher quality--which its authors attribute to lack of financial reward for quality work. Economists Carline Hoxby of Harvard University and Andrew Leigh of Australian National University found that salary distribution for U.S. public school teachers ``has narrowed so dramatically that those with the highest aptitude can expect to earn no more than those with the lowest. This alone accounts for more than three-quarters of the decline in teacher quality.'' According to their research (which used mean SAT scores to define ``aptitude'' and was limited to women), 16 percent of American female teachers in 1963 were of low aptitude, compared to 36 percent in 2000. At the other end the spectrum, only one percent of female teachers in 2000 were high-aptitude, compared to five percent in 1963.

This study underscores the assertion that, especially in this highly competitive economy, the single-salary schedule that bases compensation solely on college credits, education degrees, and years of experience does not attract the best and brightest. Highly capable and competent people are more likely to be attracted to a system that rewards individual performance.

Teaching is a profession like none other. It is responsible for educating, training, and preparing all others with the skills needed to succeed. As such, it should be held to high standards. Merit pay allows top teachers to be acknowledged for their efforts, provides an incentive to other teachers, and raises the bar of professionalism in teaching. It allows teachers to be held more accountable and judged in relation to their peers. Merit pay brings evaluation of outputs to teaching, a standard used in most professions.

MERIT PAY IS MORE COST-EFFECTIVE FOR THE TAXPAYERS

Under the current single-salary teacher pay system, a salary increase for one means a salary increase for all. Based on survey data, a majority of the public (71 percent) believes teachers deserve to earn more. However, ``just to bring the salaries in the below-average states to the national average would cost $8.5 billion--an amount that is fiscally irrational.'' Proponents of merit pay note that it would be less costly and would produce greater results to target raises toward the most effective teachers. According to the April 2005 Harris-Hart survey, ``public support for paying the costs of higher teacher salaries is enhanced if higher pay is linked to teacher performance and other accountability measures.''

REFUTING CRITICS

Among the criticisms raised by opponents of merit pay is that it inappropriately uses student performance as a measure of a teacher's effectiveness. Yet, as the aforementioned studies show, a merit pay system can be built around a variety of objective and subjective measures, decided at the local level. Successful pay systems can factor in a variety of measures of excellence, including peer and principal review, in addition to student achievement.

A parallel issue is outcome-based payments for physicians under Medicare, which is currently under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee. The aim of merit pay for teachers is similar to that of outcome-based payments for physicians. As expressed by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), that proposal would ``reward better health-care quality with better payment.''

Critics also contend that it is unfair to grade teachers and that grading could be subject to favoritism. One only needs to be reminded that testing is a reality in education. If gauging performance is inappropriate, then why do we give grades to students? The typical response, as noted in the Christian Science Monitor, is, ``We give grades because they help us understand which areas need improvement and because they acknowledge superb effort and ability.'' Also, grading based on student performance is not subject to favoritism; grading is simply a reflection of the numbers. A carefully crafted merit pay program with clearly defined measures and expectations should alleviate this concern.

Another criticism by opponents is that merit pay plans have not proven successful. A number of merit pay experiments tried in the 1980s are no longer in place. Critics argue that the decline of such programs was due to the difficulties of accurately identifying effective teachers and rewarding good teaching practices. These difficulties have been erased following annual testing of grades three through eight as required by NCLB, which provides objective measures to identify effective teachers. Proponents of change insist the experiments in the 1980s were too limited in scope, and were destined to fail due to the stiff resistance from teachers and unions. The programs running in Denver and Chattanooga are two examples of programs that are yielding positive results. Furthermore, now that NCLB gives parents the choice to transfer out of low-performing public schools, a new sense of competition among schools has emerged that has forced changes in how parents and teachers view public schools.

Critics also raise concerns that teachers will ``cherry pick'' the best students to be in their class. Supporters of merit pay note that this concern can largely be addressed by measuring student achievement using ``value-added standards,'' which look at student improvement or gain over the course of the year instead of students' level of achievement at the end of a year. Furthermore, when value-added standards are used, merit pay remains available to teachers of all students. That is, it likely is easier to get a 25-percentile gain from a student starting in the 30th percentile than a 15-percentile gain from a student already at the 80th percentile.

Critics of merit pay argue that it damages the school culture when ``superior teachers'' are singled out and given special awards. They note that in competitive industries, both employers and employees must consider the possibility that competing companies will provide better products or services at a lower price, and these incentives ``are not present in public education.'' In response, supporters of merit pay point to its wide and successful use in private schools, which suggests that it is neither infeasible nor unattractive. Private schools note they use merit pay to recruit and retain the quality teachers demanded by tuition-paying parents. This broad use of merit pay by private schools, of course, highlights a critical distinction between public and private schools: such initiatives are ``easier in the private sector because administrators are seldom subject to the constraints imposed by a collective bargaining process.'' Even so, the successes seen in the private schools could point to the direction public schools might take if teachers were rewarded for student achievements.

Along the same lines, some critics assert that rewarding some teachers and not others harms teacher collaboration within a school. Yet, this did not prove true in the Denver program. When Denver teachers were asked whether their pilot program had an impact on ``cooperation among teachers,'' the results were that 53 percent of the participating teachers said the impact was positive, and only 2 percent said the impact was negative. According to Brad Jupp, the teacher representative to the ProComp taskforce, the Denver teachers' survey response ``flies in the face of preconceptions that teachers fear pay for performance based on student growth because it will harm collegial relations.'' Furthermore, schools need to reward the best teachers to attract and retain them in the schools that need them the most. According to education researchers Caroline Hoxby and Andrew Leigh, in order to attract high-aptitude individuals back into teaching, ``school districts need to reward teachers in the same way that college graduates are paid in other professions--that is, according to their performance.''

The National Education Association argues that, rather than pay increases for some, all teachers should be paid more. However, history shows that there is no direct connection between spending more money on education and increased student achievement. According to the most recent analysis by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of its member countries' spending on education as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the United States spends the second-highest amount. And yet, U.S. student achievement does not match the higher-than-average expenditure. While the proportion of individuals completing high school has been rising in all OECD countries, the rates of students graduating from high school in most OECD countries are now higher than those in the United States. Another study shows a similar lack of correlation. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the United States outspends the other G-8 countries in per-student expenditures. And yet, fourth-grade students in the United States ranked in the middle of the list of countries in mathematics, and eighth-grade students ranked 15th among the 45 countries in mathematics.

CONCLUSION

Expectations are greater now for teachers because the No Child Left Behind Act holds schools accountable for student achievement. Merit pay is a positive way to reward those who are effective in raising student achievement. Congress needs to help states to implement alternatives to the traditional, single-salary schedule used by the majority of public schools to pay teachers if it wants to assure that schools nationwide meet the NCLB's important goals. Merit pay increases schools' ability to attract and retain highly qualified teachers, especially in fields that command high salaries outside of education, such as math and sciences, and it encourages teachers to work in high-needs schools. A carefully developed merit pay plan, with clearly defined measures and expectations, should be able to address any legitimate concerns raised by teachers and their unions. Eighty percent of parents and teachers support salary increases for teachers who improve student achievement. The Teacher Incentive Fund proposed by the President and passed by the House will permit many more schools to implement public-supported reforms, and will provide a major incentive for needed changes in teacher compensation nationally.
-----------------------

[woodstock]

--------------
Mr. REED. Mr. President, this evening the Senate passed the conference report to the fiscal year 2006 Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. I want to express my concerns with this conference report. Not only does this legislation shortchange important priorities compared to the Senate version of this bill, which passed on a near unanimous vote of 94 to 3, it is not the only affront to these programs since an additional across-the-board cut to discretionary spending is included in the Department of Defense appropriations conference report.

I am disappointed that this conference report fails to provide our children with the resources they need to compete in today's world. Children of all ages will be affected by the decisions we make today.

This conference report decreases funding to programs that help students succeed at every stage. Indeed, it cuts education funding for the first time in 10 years. Despite rising tuition costs, college students will not see an increase in financial aid. The supplemental educational opportunity grant, SEOG, program will receive $26 million less than the Senate bill we passed in October. The maximum Pell grant award will be frozen at $4,050 for the fourth year in a row, making it more difficult for students to keep up with tuition and the cost of attending college.

Funding for No Child Left Behind Act programs are reduced by 3 percent, for a total that is $13.1 billion below the authorized level. Elementary and secondary school children will experience a decrease in services funded through the School Improvement Programs, the educational technology State grants, and the Javits Gifted and Talented Program, which all received less funding than in the Senate bill.

Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act will see its smallest increase in 8 years, for a total of $12.8 billion. This is $9.9 billion less than the $22.75 billion authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act. This funding is critical to improve education in this country. In 2001, members of this chamber made a commitment with the No Child Left Behind Act to give every child an opportunity at an excellent education. The President and our colleagues from across the aisle should join us in seeking to uphold that commitment.

Infants and toddlers will also receive fewer services. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposal, the House bill, and the Senate bill all included increases in funding for Head Start. However, this conference report ignores those increases and instead includes less than 1 percent increase for this important early childhood program. Head Start centers across the country are cutting back on

comprehensive services, the core of this program's success, because funding has been minimal year after year and has not kept pace with inflation. In a time when we should be increasing our investment in early childhood development, this conference report moves us in the wrong direction.

The conference report also reduces health funding by a total of $466 million. It will set back critical research at the National Institutes of Health, unravel already fragile health care safety net programs, undermine essential health professions training programs, and leave our Nation completely unprepared to respond to a looming avian influenza pandemic.

In this conference report, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, after seeing its budget doubled only a few years ago, will face the smallest percentage increase--less than 1 percent--in more than three decades. Withdrawing our support for revolutionary basic and clinical research at such a crucial time will undoubtedly set back our efforts in the war against cancer, as well as impede our quest to learn about the causes of and find effective methods to diagnose and treat debilitating conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, and autism. These diseases are not only devastating to those who are afflicted and the families who care for them, they continue to be a significant drain on our health care system and our economy.

This bill also deals a devastating blow to essential safety net programs. First, it essentially stops cold the President's initiative to create 1,200 new or expanded health center sites to serve an additional 6.1 million people by 2006. The Senate-passed bill provided $105 million over the fiscal year 2005 level for community health centers while this bill contains an increase of only $66 million, in essence freezing any new competition for community health center funds. Second, the report slashes funding for programs that train health care providers who serve in health centers and other safety net sites.
-------------------

[Linda_D]

Originally posted by woodstock
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION--CONFERENCE REPORT--Resumed -- (Senate - December 21, 2005)
-------------------
MERIT PAY RAISES TEACHER OUALITY AND TREATS TEACHERS AS PROFESSIONALS

Education research demonstrates that teacher quality is the single most important factor affecting student achievement. That said, one recent study documents a decline in teacher quality--which its authors attribute to lack of financial reward for quality work. Economists Carline Hoxby of Harvard University and Andrew Leigh of Australian National University found that salary distribution for U.S. public school teachers ``has narrowed so dramatically that those with the highest aptitude can expect to earn no more than those with the lowest. This alone accounts for more than three-quarters of the decline in teacher quality.'' According to their research (which used mean SAT scores to define ``aptitude'' and was limited to women), 16 percent of American female teachers in 1963 were of low aptitude, compared to 36 percent in 2000. At the other end the spectrum, only one percent of female teachers in 2000 were high-aptitude, compared to five percent in 1963.

A study that bases its conclusions on "aptitude" for "teaching" as a function of SAT scores is bogus. These charlatans should stick to economics -- how about the influence of Paris Hilton on the shops on Rodeo Drive?

First off, SATs only measure how much mainstream culture and learning one has been exposed to and has absorbed by the age at which one takes the test. Moreover, the SAT scores are only indicators of an ability to do college work; they cannot predict student success in college, and certainly cannot predict student competence in a specific career. Second, using 1963 SAT scores ignores the fact that a much smaller percentage of American students attended college then (and thus took the SATs), and that those who did take the SATs tended to be not only better students, but also from white, middle and upper class homes with at least one parent with some college education. Third: using SAT scores ignores the fact college women had fewer real career choices in 1963 (teacher, librarian, nurse about sums it up). Only exceptional women became doctors, scientists or lawyers, much less bankers or business executives.

Back in the 1970s, there was a professor from UC Berkeley (Shockley, I think his name was) who "proved" that African Americans were "inferior" by measuring I.Q. scores. I think this study has about as much validity.

[steven]

Originally posted by Linda_D
A study that bases its conclusions on "aptitude" for "teaching" as a function of SAT scores is bogus. These charlatans should stick to economics -- how about the influence of Paris Hilton on the shops on Rodeo Drive?

rofl

good one linda

[CarlNads]

Shockley was a professor at Stanford and sadly should be remembered for his contributions to physics/electronics and not his Eugenics papers.

Pay for performance is a great idea, but how does one measure it? Too often if you set a a goal for a measurment and thus pay, people will meet the goal, but typically it will be at the expense of something else.

What I see as a parent from No Child Left Behind is the schools are spending a lot of time prepping students to pass these tests at the expense of educating our kids.

People don't get into teaching for the money, they do it cause they love to teach otherwise that old saying would be true... "Those who can't do ...teach "

[woodstock]

its neat ppl have opinion on this, legislation is still in session on the bill i mentioned (in part), its recommended that opinions be directed to our state senator. http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWeb...ct/webform.cfm